Depends on the number of games you're expecting your backup to play. If you're talking about four starts, 47-94 is the record at which point he is equally likely to win two as he is to win one. Worse than that, he is more likely to win one or less. Better than that, he's more likely to win two or more.

This is all assuming that you can determine a player's true value towards wins and losses based on a winning percentage, which, of course, isn't possible.

DreadNaught wrote:YOU are the only person saying that!!! Unless you can provide who else other that YOU has said such nonsense just admit it's a straw man you've created and now arguing against.

You're like watching a dog chases his tail with this....

Anytime you argue that a guy with a 69-72 record "wins as much as he loses" that's exactly what you're saying. MJW started it, the BZ clown carousel followed because that's what you guys do.

And if your argument is "well it's close" then I'll ask AGAIN. At what point does it end? 68-73? 67-74? What's the cutoff? Who's not too much of a coward to answer?

Nobody knows you babbling boob. All anyone knows is that the only person on the board or possibly anywhere who wouldn't agree that a guy who's winning pct. was .489 is capable of winning as much as losing is you. Those are the numbers we're working with and you stupidly used to prove your idiotic point.

However keep bootzin' along and figure for yourself that you've won this argument even though the rest of the world is laughing at you.

DreadNaught wrote:YOU are the only person saying that!!! Unless you can provide who else other that YOU has said such nonsense just admit it's a straw man you've created and now arguing against.

You're like watching a dog chases his tail with this....

Anytime you argue that a guy with a 69-72 record "wins as much as he loses" that's exactly what you're saying. MJW started it, the BZ clown carousel followed because that's what you guys do.

And if your argument is "well it's close" then I'll ask AGAIN. At what point does it end? 68-73? 67-74? What's the cutoff? Who's not too much of a coward to answer?

Use the whole quote...

MJW wrote:If Cutler had to play for multiple weeks, he's good enough to win as many as he loses

She is clearly saying that his winning percentage in a small sample size should be good enough to get you to .500. The math and basic logic back her up. But, you're hanging your argument on some pedantic nonsense because you have some weird e-boner for MJW that you need to have scratched.

Naismith wrote:Depends on the number of games you're expecting your backup to play. If you're talking about four starts, 47-94 is the record at which point he is equally likely to win two as he is to win one. Worse than that, he is more likely to win one or less. Better than that, he's more likely to win two or more.

This is all assuming that you can determine a player's true value towards wins and losses based on a winning percentage, which, of course, isn't possible.

Except for the fact that any team which was going to sign him and was looking at his w/l record as a determinant would simply say he's capable of winning as many as he loses without going the Pythagoras route and worring about a game and a half in one direction. Does anyone in their right mind think that if Cutler were 72-69 that the opinion would be he wins more than he loses? In either situation the opinion amongst the thinking is going to be "he's a .500 guy".

If Cutler had to play for multiple weeks, he's good enough to win as many as he loses, and possibly do better than that. The season won't be over if he has to play for a month or two. I think that's a worthwhile investment personally. I don't want the entire season to go down the crapper if Jameis gets even a moderate injury. But again, that's me. You're just going to turn injuries off, apparently.

Bootz, you're literate. Part of being literate is understanding context. Context is absolute integral to reading comprehension. All bullshit aside, answer for me, in the context of the discussion of "how well a backup QB would perform in relief duty", how many weeks do you interpret the bolded phrase is supposed to mean?

I.e., what does "multiple weeks" mean for you?

3?

4?

8?

At what point, given all you understand about person-to-person communication, which let's be honest, you spend your free time communicating to others on a internet message board, so I'd at least say you're at least better than a "cursory understanding" - at what point would you consider the cutoff for "multiple"?

If she meant more than 8 games, which represents half of a football season, don't you think she would then transition to a different set of words, other than "multiple games" to elicit a markedly different scenario than just "multiple games"; wouldn't you think one would say perhaps, "miss half a season or more", rather than "multiple games"?

I think its reasonable to assume that the cutoff for "multiple games" is 8. But just because you're being a ****, we're going to go really far, and say by multiple games, she meant "an entire ****ing season"

So we take 16 and multiply it by Jay Cutler's career winning percentage, .489

This gives us 7.824 games won, by Jay Culter, in an average, imagined scenario. And since football wins and losses aren't divided into hundreths or thousanths of points, they are given in whole numbers, we must round to the nearest approximate whole number. There's no choice in this.

You passed 3rd grade math, right? What's the nearest whole number to 7.824?

Bootz2004 wrote:Anytime you argue that a guy with a 69-72 record "wins as much as he loses" that's exactly what you're saying. MJW started it, the BZ clown carousel followed because that's what you guys do.

And if your argument is "well it's close" then I'll ask AGAIN. At what point does it end? 68-73? 67-74? What's the cutoff? Who's not too much of a coward to answer?

Use the whole quote...

MJW wrote:If Cutler had to play for multiple weeks, he's good enough to win as many as he loses

She is clearly saying that his winning percentage in a small sample size should be good enough to get you to .500. The math and basic logic back her up. But, you're hanging your argument on some pedantic nonsense because you have some weird e-boner for MJW that you need to have scratched.

You've lost this round, bootz. Better luck next time.

You left out "and possibly do better than that". Despite the fact that he hasn't won as much as he's lost. Thankfully someone has already states "no one knows" and seeing as no one here can think for themselves except me, that should speak for everyone that no one knows where it ends. So again, 69-72="Winning as much as you lose and possibly better" on Buczone.com

Naismith wrote:Depends on the number of games you're expecting your backup to play. If you're talking about four starts, 47-94 is the record at which point he is equally likely to win two as he is to win one. Worse than that, he is more likely to win one or less. Better than that, he's more likely to win two or more.

This is all assuming that you can determine a player's true value towards wins and losses based on a winning percentage, which, of course, isn't possible.

Except for the fact that any team which was going to sign him and was looking at his w/l record as a determinant would simply say he's capable of winning as many as he loses without going the Pythagoras route and worring about a game and a half in one direction. Does anyone in their right mind think that if Cutler were 72-69 that the opinion would be he wins more than he loses? In either situation the opinion amongst the thinking is going to be "he's a .500 guy".

72-69 ISNT winning more than you lose but 69-72 possibly is. And you people call ME the idiot?? Lmao! This is classic. You cannot make this stuff up.

She is clearly saying that his winning percentage in a small sample size should be good enough to get you to .500. The math and basic logic back her up. But, you're hanging your argument on some pedantic nonsense because you have some weird e-boner for MJW that you need to have scratched.

You've lost this round, bootz. Better luck next time.

You left out "and possibly do better than that". Despite the fact that he hasn't won as much as he's lost. Thankfully someone has already states "no one knows" and seeing as no one here can think for themselves except me, that should speak for everyone that no one knows where it ends. So again, 69-72="Winning as much as you lose and possibly better" on Buczone.com

Lost? Because you say so and you have backers? Not even close.

"and possibly do better than that" is a subjective statement based on MJW's positive assessment of the current Buc's roster in relation to past Bears/Broncos rosters that Cutler has previously played on... has nothing to do with the objective arithmetic facts you've been in denial of for 2 pages now

Bootz2004 wrote:You left out "and possibly do better than that". Despite the fact that he hasn't won as much as he's lost. Thankfully someone has already states "no one knows" and seeing as no one here can think for themselves except me, that should speak for everyone that no one knows where it ends. So again, 69-72="Winning as much as you lose and possibly better" on Buczone.com

Lost? Because you say so and you have backers? Not even close.

"and possibly do better than that" is a subjective statement based on MJW's positive assessment of the current Buc's roster in relation to past Bears/Broncos rosters that Cutler has previously played on... has nothing to do with the objective arithmetic facts you've been in denial of for 2 pages now

Leave it to you to deem a statement someone else makes as "subjective".

beardmcdoug wrote:"and possibly do better than that" is a subjective statement based on MJW's positive assessment of the current Buc's roster in relation to past Bears/Broncos rosters that Cutler has previously played on... has nothing to do with the objective arithmetic facts you've been in denial of for 2 pages now

Leave it to you to deem a statement someone else makes as "subjective".

Four Verticals wrote:Except for the fact that any team which was going to sign him and was looking at his w/l record as a determinant would simply say he's capable of winning as many as he loses without going the Pythagoras route and worring about a game and a half in one direction. Does anyone in their right mind think that if Cutler were 72-69 that the opinion would be he wins more than he loses? In either situation the opinion amongst the thinking is going to be "he's a .500 guy".

I agree with you that in either scenario, people would refer to him as a guy that wins half the time he's on the field. I don't believe that any (or at least, most) teams would determine whether they want to sign a QB based on his win-loss record, so I'm not sure that really matters too much to them.

My only point was that Jay Cutler isn't a 69-72 QB. He's a 69-72 QB in the situations he's been in. Had he played his entire career on the Bears teams of the last three years, he'd have a worse record. Had he played his entire career on the Bears teams from 2010-2012, he'd have a much better record. His record is an easy way to define him but it's also a very superficial way because he wasn't responsible for every loss, nor every win. He was part of teams, some good, some bad, but that doesn't mean he's only capable of (or still capable of) winning 50% of his games going forward.

She is clearly saying that his winning percentage in a small sample size should be good enough to get you to .500. The math and basic logic back her up. But, you're hanging your argument on some pedantic nonsense because you have some weird e-boner for MJW that you need to have scratched.

You've lost this round, bootz. Better luck next time.

You left out "and possibly do better than that". Despite the fact that he hasn't won as much as he's lost. Thankfully someone has already states "no one knows" and seeing as no one here can think for themselves except me, that should speak for everyone that no one knows where it ends. So again, 69-72="Winning as much as you lose and possibly better" on Buczone.com

Lost? Because you say so and you have backers? Not even close.

"And possibly do better" does not mean "and will do better". It's just tossing out the possibility. And, when you're just tossing out the "possibility" then you are also acknowledging the chance that things could also possibly go worse.

I mean, we could bootz you and say "Possible=Certainty" on Bootzone.com! That's exactly what you're doing here and why everyone is giving you some well earned ****.

And, no, you've lost because you don't have probability on your side. You can keep repeating the fact that 69 is less than 72...because, you're right. 69 is totally less than 72. But, until you realize that has absolutely nothing to do with probability...then you're lost and you've lost.